Email surveillance: the political fallout begins

Front pages condemn "snooper's charter", while both Tories and Lib Dems speak out against the bill.

"Snooper's charter will cost YOU £2bn," screams the Daily Mail's headline this morning. The Times goes with the slightly more sober "New law on snooping puts Tories in turmoil", while the Guardian's angle is "Lib Dems threaten rebellion over plans to extend email and phone call surveillance".

Yes, today was another morning of almost universally bad headlines for the coalition, this time over plans to expand the type of communications data stored by telephone and internet providers. Under the proposals, internet service providers would retain details of every phone call, email and website visit for at least a year.

While the government is adamant that this will not mean access to the content of messages, merely to data about them, there are question marks over where the line will be. Moreover, it is a significant ramping up of state power from a coalition led by two men who both promised to tackle excessive surveillance while in opposition.

According to the Guardian, senior Liberal Democrats are threatening to rebel, and are seeking clarification from Nick Clegg's office over whether the legislation would allow the intelligence services to access the content of communications without a warrant from the Home Secretary. "No expert I've ever spoken to can see how this could possibly be done without great expense and without allowing access to the actual message that was sent," said Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP for Cambridge.

Meanwhile, the Times (£) quotes several Conservatives taking issue with the plans. Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested that David Cameron was being hypocritical, and warned of the possible international ramifications: "The government ought to remember why it favoured liberty in opposition. The powers it creates may in future be used by less benevolent administrations." David Davis said it was "an unnecessary extension of the ability of the State to snoop on ordinary people", while Dominic Raab warned of the risk of fraud.

The Home Secretary Theresa May is out defending the proposal this morning, writing in the Sun that it will help to tackle organised crime and terrorism ("Whole paedophile rings, criminal conspiracies and terrorist plots can then be smashed.").

But as the raft of negative front pages and comment pieces shows, this is another media battle that the coalition is losing. Yesterday, I blogged on reports that Tory MPs are frustrated that government policies are not being communicated properly to voters. Today, as ministers fail to articulate an effective response to the Information Commissioner's comment (contained in a previously restricted briefing note) that "the case for the retention of this data still needs to be made", that worry seems justified.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has defended proposals over extending email surveillance. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Metro mayors can help Labour return to government

Labour champions in the new city regions can help their party at the national level too.

2017 will mark the inaugural elections of directly-elected metro mayors across England. In all cases, these mayor and cabinet combined authorities are situated in Labour heartlands, and as such Labour should look confidently at winning the whole slate.

Beyond the good press winning again will generate, these offices provide an avenue for Labour to showcase good governance, and imperatively, provide vocal opposition to the constraints of local government by Tory cuts.

The introduction of the Mayor of London in 2000 has provided a blueprint for how the media can provide a platform for media-friendly leadership. It has also demonstrated the ease that the office allows for attribution of successes to that individual and party – or misappropriated in context of Boris Bikes and to a lesser extent the London Olympics.

While without the same extent of the powers of the sui generis mayor of the capital, the prospect of additional metro-mayors provide an opportunity for replicating these successes while providing experience for Labour big-hitters to develop themselves in government. This opportunity hasn’t gone unnoticed, and after Sadiq Khan’s victory in London has shown that the role can grow beyond the limitations – perceived or otherwise - of the Corbyn shadow cabinet while strengthening team Labour’s credibility by actually being in power.

Shadow Health Secretary and former leadership candidate Andy Burnham’s announcement last week for Greater Manchester was the first big hitter to make his intention known. The rising star of Luciana Berger, another member of Labour’s health team, is known to be considering a run in the Liverpool City Region. Could we also see them joined by the juggernaut of Liam Byrne in the West Midlands, or next-generation Catherine McKinnell in the North East?

If we can get a pantheon of champions elected across these city regions, to what extent can this have an influence on national elections? These new metro areas represent around 11.5 million people, rising to over 20 million if you include Sadiq’s Greater London. While no doubt that is an impressive audience that our Labour pantheon are able to demonstrate leadership to, there are limitations. 80 of the 94 existing Westminster seats who are covered under the jurisdiction of the new metro-mayors are already Labour seats. While imperative to solidify our current base for any potential further electoral decline, in order to maximise the impact that this team can have on Labour’s resurgence there needs to be visibility beyond residents.

The impact of business is one example where such influence can be extended. Andy Burnham for example has outlined his case to make Greater Manchester the creative capital of the UK. According to the ONS about 150,000 people commute into Greater Manchester, which is two constituency’s worth of people that can be directly influenced by the Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Despite these calculations and similar ones that can be made in other city-regions, the real opportunity with selecting the right Labour candidates is the media impact these champion mayors can make on the national debate. This projects the influence from the relatively-safe Labour regions across the country. This is particularly important to press the blame of any tightening of belts in local fiscal policy on the national Tory government’s cuts. We need individuals who have characteristics of cabinet-level experience, inspiring leadership, high profile campaigning experience and tough talking opposition credentials to support the national party leadership put the Tory’s on the narrative back foot.

That is not to say there are not fine local council leaders and technocrats who’s experience and governance experience at vital to Labour producing local successes. But the media don’t really care who number two is, and these individuals are best serving the national agenda for the party if they support A-listers who can shine a bright spotlight on our successes and Tory mismanagement.

If Jeremy Corbyn and the party are able to topple the Conservatives come next election, then all the better that we have a diverse team playing their part both on the front bench and in the pantheon of metro-mayors. If despite our best efforts Jeremy’s leadership falls short, then we will have experienced leaders in waiting who have been able to afford some distance from the front-bench, untainted and able to take the party’s plan B forward.